Contradiction with Ezekiel 18:20
Ezekiel states that the soul who sins will die, emphasizing personal accountability, whereas Hosea 4:8 implies communal guilt as the priests feed off the sin of the people.
Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Contradiction with Matthew 9:13
Jesus calls for mercy rather than sacrifice, contrasting with Hosea 4:8 where priests delight in the people's sins, suggesting the opposite of mercy.
Matthew 9:13: But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11
God questions the value of sacrifices, differing from Hosea 4:8 where the sins and offerings of the people sustain the priests.
Isaiah 1:11: To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. [he goats: Heb. great he goats]
Contradiction with Micah 6:8
This verse calls for justice, mercy, and humility with God, in contradiction to Hosea 4:8 where priests benefit from sin without calling for righteousness.
Micah 6:8: He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? [walk...: Heb. humble thyself to walk]
Paradox #1
Hosea 4:8 criticizes priests for benefiting from people's sins, which suggests they have a vested interest in sin continuing. This could contradict the Bible's broader message about leaders guiding people away from sin and promoting righteousness. The idea of religious leaders gaining from wrongdoing conflicts with their role as moral guides.
Paradox #2
Hosea 4:8 could be seen as presenting a contradiction because it suggests that religious leaders might benefit from the wrongdoings or sins of the people. This could conflict with the expectation that religious leaders should guide and support people towards good and righteousness, rather than gain from their mistakes.